To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

r
Vietnam Gl
January 1968
BONDS?
BALLS!
The TV screen shows troops
pouring out of their helicopter,
ready for an operation, as the
unseen commentator intones:
"Do you buy Savings Bonds
where you work? They do."
This spot commercial is shown
constantly on every stateside TV
network. It implies that if GIs
can be patriotic" enough to buy
Savings Bonds as well as fight
in the war, then everybody else
should be patriotic enough to
at least buy Bonds.
The problem is that the public
is not buying enough Bonds,
which is why the Administration
•is putting out all this horseshit
propaganda. Unlike WWII, when
people, backed the war by buying
a fantastic number of Bonds,
most civilians don't like this
war and aren't interested in
sacrificing for it. You don't see
III
N'T
BUY!
Johnson sinking his $15 million
fortune into Savings Bonds!
But then there's one group
of Americans who can always
be run through the wringer—
servicemen. As LBJ put it
the other week while visiting
Bergstrom AFB: "One of the
things I am proudest of is the
men who do most of the fighting
do most of the financing, too."
Every CO has had his "quota"
of Bonds to sell, and in unit
after unit men have been
pressured into signing up for
the Payroll Savings Plan.
Even guys with heavy allotments
have been pushed to take out
an additional deduction for Bonds.
In some cases "non-conforming"
GIs have been called before
their COs.
Now DoD is scrambling to halt
a Congressional bill aimed at
eliminating this practice. S1036,
a bill introduced by Sen. Ervin
(D.-N.C), makes it a criminal
offense, punishable by court
martial, for an officer to force
.or intimidate his men into
buying Bonds. S1036 has already
passed the Senate and is awaiting
action by the House. Defense
<; officials claim no such law is
needed, as new directives
forbidding such command abuses
are already cleaning up the
problem.
As usual, the Pentagon moves
to protect servicemen only when
public pressure threatens to
expose one of their games. GIs
are already giving their time,
risking their asses, and putting
up with military life besides;
why should they be harassed
into using their small paychecks
to pay for the damn war as well?..
Free
"It seemed like I'd been
doing this all my life../
Dave Tuck, 26, finds norking
at the Cleveland Post Office
much calmer than his 13-month
tour ^in Vietnam. A combat
veteran, he spent most of his
tour out in the field in the Central
Highlands.
that we were the best of the
leg outfits. When I say this
I'm not bragging, it's just that,
in fact, I believe we were the
best at that time next to the
SHARLET; What unit
in over there, Dave?
were you
TUCK: I was in the A Company,
1st Battalion, 35th Infantry
Regiment, which is a part of the
3rd Brigade of the 25th. You
know at that time our base camp
was near Plei^i. I landed there
January 8th, 1966 and flew back
February 9, 1967. So that was
the outfit I was in.
SHARLET: Did you and your
buddies in the 3rd Brigade think
you were combat-ready when you
went over there.
TUCK: I would
——
have to admit
173rd. I think we were better
than the 101st when they first
got over, there. You know,
because the terrain in Hawaii
is a lot like the terrain in
Vietnam, and we spent a lot of
time in the field in these
exercises. Plus we were given
M-16
The M-16 controversy has
produced the biggest Washington
scandal of the Viet War. Ever
since late 1966, when stories
about M-16s jamming in combat
first appeared in the newspapers,
the Pentagon has tried to pass
the buck. As usual, they put
the blame on GIs, who were
supposed to have caused the
jamming by not bothering to
clean their own guns.
The GIs' sloppiness was said
to have been especially bad
since the M-16's design makes it
an easy gun to get fouled.
Okay! Then why didn't the Army
training manual tell guys this?
Instead, it misled soldiers about
the weapon their lives might
depend on. % . . • '-• '
"THIS WEAPON REQUIRES
THE LEAST ..MAINTENANCE
OF ANY TYPE WEAPON WITHIN
THE ARMY ARSENAL TODAY
THIS RIFLE WILL FIRE LONGER
WITHOUT CLEANING OR OILING
THAN ANY OTHER KNOWN
RIFLE."
That statement is pure baloney.
And while we're on it, we might
mention that the experts sent to
Vietnam in '66 to trouble-shoot
the M-16 found a widespread
shortage of cleaning supplies!
But the lousiest part of the
whole M-16 scandal is the story
of the new, cheaper ammo. Back
in 1964 the DoD decided to make
a change in the M-16's ammu
nition. They wanted to re-use
a large stock of surplus-
gunpowder the DoD had originally
purchased for other uses. And
they got a company, Winchester,
to do just this, making M-16
ammo cheaper. .
But this "bargain basement"
ammo often caused excessive
fouling under heavy fire. The
M-16's inventor, Eugene Stoner;
the manufacturer, Coltlndustries;
and the Small Arms Weapons
Study all warned about this.
In fact, back in 1964 Colt told
the DoD that the new rounds
caused so much fouling that over
half of the M-16s couldn't pass
acceptance tests. Of course, DoD
told Colt to just keep on testing
rifles with the old ammo.
Common sense, isn't it? Then
DoD turned right around and
shipped millions of rounds of
this same inferior ammo to
Vietnam.
Well, you all know what
happened. Some rifles jammed
in combat, GIs wrote home about
it, and the fat was in the fire.
Now that the politicians and the
newspapers are in on the game,
DoD brass are making changes.
A chromed chamber, heavier
buffer, and manual bolt-closure
are all on the latest model.
But our question is: If the new,
cheaper ammo wasn't good
enough for Colt, how come DoD
thought it was good enough for
GIs in combat?
classes in jungle warfare, jungle
survival; we even had a prisoner
of war camp, you know, which
was made as realistic as possible,
including the beatings. I would
say that only the 173rd was
ahead of us, and they were
stationed on Okinawa before they
left.
SHARLET: , How did guys
you knew in your outfit feel
about it before and after?
TUCK: Well, in the first place
you gotta remember that most of
the guys didn't think about it
politically. They looked upon it
as another duty station, an
adventure. At first everyone was
scared, but since everyone hated
Hawaii they were glad tobe gone.
In the main, by that time most
guys thought we had no business
getting—involvod—i*>—it, bwt thoy
figured that since we were over
there...you know, they figured
that it's the same with any war,
the politicians start it and the
soldiers have to fight it.
SHARLET: Why did all you guys
hate Hawaii?
TUCK: One of the reasons we
hated Hawaii is because theloca]
people certainly didn't appreciate
the military. In fact, in the little
town right outside Scofield
barracks the GIs had to go in
pairs and carry knives, because
the local boys would jump on
them. ......... .. See, now, what
I'm trying to say now, the
Hawaiians will be friendly to
tourists, those they can make
money off of, but if. you're a
serviceman who spends time
the year around, well, they're
just unfriendly. I can count on
my fingers the number of guys,
both black and white, who had
Hawaiian girlfriends, because
it's just that the local girls
wouldn't associate with us.
In fact, it was so bad that
my outfit supplied gunners in
those helicopter outfits. The
Commanding General thought the,
(continued on page 2)

Copyright belongs to the individuals who created them or the organizations for which they worked. We share them here strictly for non-profit educational purposes. If you believe that you possess copyright to material included here, please contact us at asklibrary@wisconsinhistory.org. Under the fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright law, teachers and students are free to reproduce any document for nonprofit classroom use. Commercial use of copyright-protected material is generally prohibited.

Copyright belongs to the individuals who created them or the organizations for which they worked. We share them here strictly for non-profit educational purposes. If you believe that you possess copyright to material included here, please contact us at asklibrary@wisconsinhistory.org. Under the fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright law, teachers and students are free to reproduce any document for nonprofit classroom use. Commercial use of copyright-protected material is generally prohibited.

r
Vietnam Gl
January 1968
BONDS?
BALLS!
The TV screen shows troops
pouring out of their helicopter,
ready for an operation, as the
unseen commentator intones:
"Do you buy Savings Bonds
where you work? They do."
This spot commercial is shown
constantly on every stateside TV
network. It implies that if GIs
can be patriotic" enough to buy
Savings Bonds as well as fight
in the war, then everybody else
should be patriotic enough to
at least buy Bonds.
The problem is that the public
is not buying enough Bonds,
which is why the Administration
•is putting out all this horseshit
propaganda. Unlike WWII, when
people, backed the war by buying
a fantastic number of Bonds,
most civilians don't like this
war and aren't interested in
sacrificing for it. You don't see
III
N'T
BUY!
Johnson sinking his $15 million
fortune into Savings Bonds!
But then there's one group
of Americans who can always
be run through the wringer—
servicemen. As LBJ put it
the other week while visiting
Bergstrom AFB: "One of the
things I am proudest of is the
men who do most of the fighting
do most of the financing, too."
Every CO has had his "quota"
of Bonds to sell, and in unit
after unit men have been
pressured into signing up for
the Payroll Savings Plan.
Even guys with heavy allotments
have been pushed to take out
an additional deduction for Bonds.
In some cases "non-conforming"
GIs have been called before
their COs.
Now DoD is scrambling to halt
a Congressional bill aimed at
eliminating this practice. S1036,
a bill introduced by Sen. Ervin
(D.-N.C), makes it a criminal
offense, punishable by court
martial, for an officer to force
.or intimidate his men into
buying Bonds. S1036 has already
passed the Senate and is awaiting
action by the House. Defense
—it, bwt thoy
figured that since we were over
there...you know, they figured
that it's the same with any war,
the politicians start it and the
soldiers have to fight it.
SHARLET: Why did all you guys
hate Hawaii?
TUCK: One of the reasons we
hated Hawaii is because theloca]
people certainly didn't appreciate
the military. In fact, in the little
town right outside Scofield
barracks the GIs had to go in
pairs and carry knives, because
the local boys would jump on
them. ......... .. See, now, what
I'm trying to say now, the
Hawaiians will be friendly to
tourists, those they can make
money off of, but if. you're a
serviceman who spends time
the year around, well, they're
just unfriendly. I can count on
my fingers the number of guys,
both black and white, who had
Hawaiian girlfriends, because
it's just that the local girls
wouldn't associate with us.
In fact, it was so bad that
my outfit supplied gunners in
those helicopter outfits. The
Commanding General thought the,
(continued on page 2)